Sk Rakesh Kumar Mandal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3474 Cal

5        29.6.2021                    WPA 6319 of 2021
sk                            Rakesh Kumar Mandal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ct. 15

                               Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta
                               Mr. Saikat Sutradhar
                                ...for the petitioner.

                               Dr. Chapalesh Bandyopadhyay
                               Ms. Anandamayee Dutta
                                         ...for the School Service Commission.

A question has arisen in this writ petition that the petitioner whose professional qualification was accepted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (SSC) subsequent to publication of the initial notice for recruitment to the posts of Upper Primary Teachers, which was published on 23rd June, 2016 was not accepted later.

The selection process initiated pursuant to the above notice was thereafter set aside by this court by the judgment and order delivered in WPA No. 9597 of 2019 and other related matters. The professional qualifications of the petitioner has not been allowed to be uploaded in the website when the new notification in compliance with the above order of this court was published on 28.12.2020.

Mr. Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the marks allotted to him as appears from the merit list prepared in the recruitment process against the 2016 notification where he was given 10 (ten) marks for his professional qualifications.

The question is if his professional qualification was accepted earlier by SSC then why this time, when the fresh process has started the professional qualification will not be accepted by SSC.

Learned Advocate for SSC submits that the entire process which was initiated by virtue of the first notification dated 23.6.2016 has been set aside and cancelled. A new notification for verification under Rule 12(3) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for appointment to the Posts of Teachers for Upper Primary Level of Schools), Rules, 2016 has been published and the whole process has been initiated according to the said notification.

According to the learned Advocate for SSC, Rule 12(3) of the above Rules speaks for the verification of the candidates qualification

and not enhanced qualifications. In support of his contention he has also relied upon the judgment delivered by this court on January 19, 2021 in WPA No. 191 of 2021 and other related matters wherein the question has been decided that the enhanced qualifications would not be accepted by SSC.

I am of the prima facie opinion that when a candidate had the qualifications before the issuance of the notice dated 23.6.2016 but could not mention the qualification because non-receiving of the mark- sheets/certificate from the authority from whom he obtained the professional qualification it is not proper to deny him the benefit of the professional qualification. In fact Commission's decision earlier was to give the petitioner the credit for such qualification and marks therefore was actually given to him.

Pursuant to my earlier direction, the petitioner has produced a copy of one screen shot dated 19th January, 2021 to show that he was allowed to upload his other qualifications etc. in the website of SSC.

The document is kept on record.

This matter cannot be decided without exchange of affidavits because the candidate had the professional qualification before first notification was published in the year 2016 which appears from the mark-sheets issued by the authority (at page 16-17) of the writ application. However, the question of accepting qualification which were not disclosed by a candidate at the time when he first applied in response to the initial notification (published in the year 2016) whether can be accepted or not subsequently still remains in question to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Affidavit-in-opposition is to be filed by seven days from date by i.e. 6th July, 2021, reply thereto, if any, is to be given by 9th July, 2021 and the matter will appear in the list on 14th July, 2021. I mark this matter as heard-in-part by consent of the parties.

As the interview list has already been published by SSC and the apprehension of the petitioner is that if the interview is complete, then if the writ application succeeds, he may not get any chance to get employment in a school and he, therefore, prays for an order for keeping a post vacant in his category and subject so that he can be accommodated there in future, if situation arises.

Learned Advocate for the Commission has vehemently opposed such prayer of interim order on the ground that the petitioner has not made out any such case for interim order and this court cannot grant such interim order.

I have considered the submission of the parties and considering the prima facie case made out by the petitioner and the balance of convenience which is in favour of the petitioner, an interim order to the effect that a seat in the category and subject of the petitioner is to be kept vacant till the matter is finally disposed of, is passed.

The matter cannot be decided without physical hearing. The matter will be taken up on 14th July, 2021 at 2-00 p.m. and the parties are granted liberty to appear physically but not more than two persons for each of the parties will he allowed in the physical hearing.

(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.)